Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Point to point adjacency down.

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:09:06 -0500

>    Typically you schedule an SPF run, and wait for a brief
>    period, so that related events (hearing indirectly that
>    the other side also thinks the link is down) don't 
>    cause multiple runs.  I've just run through 10589 and
>    don't see evidence of such a value.  I already have a 
>    note in my todo file to add such a variable to the MIB.  
> 
> This strays into the area of creative implementation possibilities.
> I suspect that a MIB variable with a scalar value that is expected
> to be stable does not accurately represent either of the dominant
> implementations.
> 
> --Dave

Noted and removed from the list of things todo.

:wq

- jeff parker
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Dave Katz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)

This cuts at the heart of MIB-ifying things, which is that a standard
MIB can really only address the things that are truly normative, where
"truly" means "the protocol doesn't work without it," and the really
good stuff has to be in a private MIB, if it's exposed at all.

If you are quite well versed in the design and function of the
protocol, there are *lots* of implementation choices you can make that
will interoperate perfectly well (the only true requirement of a
standard) but are not necessarily obvious, as well as some statements
in the spec that do not reflect what the protocol is actually capable
of (the lifetime issue, for example.)

Much of this implementation flexibility is the toehold for competitive
advantage, so you may find some of us less than forthcoming in the
details, since competitive advantage is a pretty thin concept when
dealing with standards.

But as a Rude Pragmatist (tm), I also don't believe that SNMP will
ever be used in any realistic way to configure a Real Router, as its
Turing-machine-like semantics (thanks, jeff) are far too clumsy
to be useful.  XML-based stuff is looking much more promising.  As
such, exposing implementation-specific data in a read-only mode
in a non-standard MIB is of very limited usefulness.

--Dave

   :wq

   - jeff parker